Superbugs are true for the same reason reason covid is benign - nature selects for that which is best suited to it's environment
When the environment is one where antibacterials are everywhere, resistance is required. Resistance is selected for, and what competes out the alternatives is unstoppable. Being deadly is a fine reproductive strategy when there's an endless supply of sick just meters away and you can't be stopped.
Hospitals are an unusual environment. We should have decentralized them ages ago, but competition is literally not allowed so instead of having several smaller facilities we have consolidated state mandated monopolies. You can thank socialism for that too by the way.
That's THE ANALOGY
they want you subservient to The Experts and The Science.
I wonder if that's exactly what I wrote
the priests, which in this case are the politicians masquerading as scientists
Oh wow, it was
History is written by the history writers. And the history writers want your subservice to the priests, which in this case are the politicians masquerading as scientists, and so they credit everything good to the church. Vaccines, poverty, pollution - man accomplished this, but they want you to believe it was god that did it. That it was """science""", and without it we would be nowhere, so do what the """scientists""" say next. Eat the bugs, own nothing, get microchiped, god knows what is best for you, and hellfire awaits if you choose to think instead for yourself.
whatever you want man
What a dull oversimplification. How can you misunderstand so badly?
Honest to god I will send you $20 in bitcoin if you send me a screenshot https://test.mensa.no/
I simply have to know now. I tried so hard to walk you through it, and I just have to know. Seriously. Send me an address to send you the bitcoin along with the screenshot, no judgement. Let me make it worth your time.
I have not responded with ad homs, I am not calling you retarded, I am asking you to distinguish the reality of where you fall on a bell curve so I can tailor my arguments productively.
Ok, see that was helpful. You're getting about half the argument. It's not just because Biden's looks different from others, and that it looks like a foreign dignitaries. Let's talk hypothesis testing:
A hypothesis is basically anything that fits the available facts. The military having many variations fits the facts, including regs you cite. But likewise, the military having distinct variations also fits the facts -
(your regs aren't the beginning or end. It reads more like a summary than the definitive article because it leaves way to much in the air, from type of cannon, to uniform dress, to procedure in setup, administration, adjudication and so on. I'm not saying this is so, but I am saying the available facts do not reject it. It would be entirely consistent with the onion like layers on military regs that no, you aren't going to just find in a google search)
That aside, we have two hypothesis. You test hypothesis by falsifying them. You find ways in which one or the other is not true, not less true, or more likely to be true. That your hypothesis isn't rejected by the regs you found is not proof your hypothesis is right, for example.
The way to falsify the distinct variations hypothesis is to find instances in which these distinctions do not carry. If they are not distinct, there should be other examples of POTUS with unusual 21 gun variations, and other examples of dignitaries receiving the 3+1@3 variation. We can reject the hypothesis when we find an example inconsistent with it.
The way to falsify the many variations hypothesis is much the same - finding examples inconsistent with it. A regulation explicitly stating only one variation for each case would certainly work, but we can falsify it in the same way as the previous - Evidence of convention is evidence against there being no convention; If every president is saluted in one way, and all dignitaries saluted in another, then you can reject the many variations hypothesis.
Do you see why now I say that the regs aren't important? Additional regs would be nice, because they could serve to falsify, by simply having a set that a given hypothesis isn't falsified in does help us narrow it down. The video evidence does. And while I'd love more examples, what we have are enough.
If you'd have just sent me a screenshot I'd have known if this is still over your head or not. But do you understand hypothesis testing? Do understand the goal is not to affirm a hypothesis, but reject them? Do you understand that the regs you found don't help in that? Do you see why the video evidence we have argues for distinct variations rather than many?
why did ____ vote to certify the fraudulent election results?
Because they always wanted to, and felt that the storming gave them the means to get away with it (at the time).
EVERYTHING is optics EXCEPT consequential actions
Lack of data is an issue. And it's largely the fact that I have Obama's 21 gun 3+1@3sec salute arriving at Arlington that I feel the claim is emboldened. These things have reasons. In the military it's x or it's y because of z, but very rarely is anything ever, you know, x or y, whatever you feel.
Not only is Biden is the only 2+1@9sec, not only does it align with the foreign dignitary, but it's literally the sole odd man out of literally every living POTUS salute on video record I can find. Granted most of those are inaugural, but it's not a low number.
The only thing giving me pause is the 2+1 of Regan's funeral. That also feels out of place, but it's not as if I have any other example of it, such as a 2+1@5sec for the death of some foreign queen or something to better align it with something other than what it otherwise would seem to be.
Lacking evidence of POTUS' receiving 2+1@9seconds is not evidence that no such occurrences exist, but the data does fit the hypothesis and despite now two days of work looking I can't for the life of me falsify it. So while I will not present it as fact (outside normal optimism/hyperbole) like all things in science I hang my hat on it until disproven or a better fitting alternative is proposed.
Can you either summarize my position so I'm sure that you understand what you're refuting, or screenshot your results so I can retailor it so you can understand it? One or the other.
I reached out to the Guns Platoon public Liason re: # of Guns and sequence timing of volleys.
Nice!!
BTW:
This part of GW Regan's funeral looks like a 2+1@5sec
5 seconds is what is prescribed for in funerals, though the battery configuration is unusual, not just compared to inaugurations, but from other funerals.
This part of GW Bush's funeral was a 3+1@5sec
Another angle 3+1@5sec.
This part of Nixon's Funeral was a 3+1@5sec
It looks like Regan was the only 2+1 configuration I've ever seen, and I'm sure there isn't an extra gun off frame as the firing order/timing is consistent with the right most gun firing the third shell at the 33 second mark if it were a 2+1 configuration.
Of course, these are funerals. I'd prefer to compare apples with apples
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
Military regulations are layered like onions.
The document you link, which I had already read specifies 3 second intervals, 5 second intervals, but never 9 second intervals (3-3), yet here we are with 9 second intervals. What gives? Does the military just not care? No, it's because we don't have the docs for Arlington, or for the 3rd infantry, or for anything else we can't even know that we don't know exist. Which is why you can't point to this one document and ignore the video evidence.
We have clear convention, which whether we have the regs for or not implies a given regulation of battery number and interval. You do not falsify the premise by noting an absence of supporting regulation (absence of the regs is not evidence the reg does not exist) but by finding evidence contrary to the convention; where are the videos of Obama, or Regan, on Bush getting 2+1@9sec salutes? Where are the videos of foreign dignitaries receiving 3+1@3sec salutes?
Do you understand everything I just wrote? If you won't take the test (even for your own purposes) can you summarize my argument back to me? Summarize my argument and we'll go from there.
np, mi rabbit-hole es su rabbit-hole
Science was an 'I win' button in arguments. And for good reason. You can't argue against facts and logic. The problem was that retards got in arguments and then someone posted a study and everyone went, "oh yes I see, well there you go" and the retard got mad. It wasn't fair. So the retards banded together and now they make their own studies.
SEE IT SAYS THERE ARE MANY GENDERS, I WIN
SEE IT SAYS THE TEMPERATURE WILL GO UP 8c IN TWENTY YEARS, I WIN
"IT SAYS"
"IT SAYS"
As though it being in a paper makes it so. As though it was ever the source being the weight of the argument. That by donning a lab coat the same argument becomes unassailable.
"Science" today is a fucking cargo cult of what it once was.
I'm not implying you are retarded, but I want you to understand there are different ways to walk you through this depending on where on the bell curve you are. I don't want to insult you by tailoring too low, but neither do I want this to continue to go over your head by tailoring too high. And neither of us have the patience to go through things another three or four times as I zero in on the right way to explain this. Just take the test, don't you want to know anyways?
Was just trying to help for fucks sake
Then find me videos of POTUS receiving a 2+1@9sec, I have found zero
Or find me a video of a foreign dignitary receiving a 3+1@3sec, I have found zero
I have found plenty of the reverse on the POTUS side
If you want to help, then find evidence that falsifies the position. I've tried and can't.
attack your allies
What attack?
Trillions and billions respectively
I can't tell what I'm dealing with here, because you've completely ignored the point. A regulation is not the metric. Please screenshot me your result so I know how to tailor a reply:
She's literally a groomed deep state actor.
Sorry bro, your hot Indian savior politician is playing the role of the trap and you've been caught.
This is because 'the party of science' are politicians and no scientists. Even their scientists are politicians rather than scientists.
You want to know what deadly viruses do in the age of hygiene? They get less deadly, and fast. In an environment of hand washing and not letting corpses rot in the streets, being deadly simply isn't a successful reproduction strategy, so variants which mutate (back) into typical respiratory virus phenotypes out compete other variants.
It doesn't matter if Sars-2 was released purposefully or accidentally from the Wuhan lab, it wasn't going to be the threat it was seen to be post function gain development, not for long. Once you let a virus into nature, it's selected for it's environment.
Which incidentally, is why hygiene (not vaccinations) has been the primary driver in reductions in everything from typhoid to polio. Vaccines work, but Hygiene works even better.
All my videos are all queued up, so you can spend ~5 seconds on any link of mine you click.
Now, if number of guns and interval timing were unimportant as you suggest then you'd expect them to be standardized.
If however they are important, you'd be unable to find examples of the POTUS (other than Biden) receiving his 21 in a 2+1@9sec configuration, and you should be able to find foreign dignitaries receiving their 21 with 3+1@3sec configurations.
I can find no examples of either, so I conclude that yes, gun numbers and intervals absolutely matter.
Same. But I've never seen video of 5 seconds which in and of itself is revealing.
As I have noted with another reasonable skeptic, just because you've found one set of regs does not mean you've found them all. These things are layered like onions and the less general they are the harder they are to find. This could be an Arlington thing, a 3rd Infantry thing, a revised doctrine thing, who knows what.
It was past midnight, it was a new day! I'm covered!
Honey Bunches of Oats? Literal S tier, what's wrong with you folk?